Golden Copy: Basel Sequel Fatigue
The prospect of a 'Basel IV' has many wondering about several issues still outstanding with Basel III

If Basel III already has the industry quivering like a dog cowed by an invisible electric fence—as NYU professor Brad Hintz described it during a panel discussion hosted by Broadridge this week, around the release of its industry survey—what's it going to do if a tougher "Basel IV" comes along?
First of all, it's strange and confusing that Mark Carney, chair of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and a governor of the Bank of England, is weighing in publicly about tightening risk modeling and capital assessment rules, which are part of Basel III—since the FSB isn't the architect or administrator of Basel III. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) is the body responsible for that set of rules. We should be asking BCBS if they are thinking about a "Basel IV."
All that aside, the changes being made to Basel III are "pretty radical," as Hintz characterizes them. "European banks face some real issues with their risk weightings. If you adjust risk weightings, it's going to change inventory positions and your ability to hold legacy positions and work them out over time," he says. The result, according to Hintz, is that firms must offer a "smorgasbord of every product to everyone, all the time."
While capital adequacy and stress testing appear to be getting tougher in Europe, they may be getting easier in the US, if the US Federal Reserve removes, at the industry's urging, its assumption in CCAR testing that firms would continue dividends and stock buybacks even in a severe economic downturn. "From the Fed's perspective, it wants to use CCAR correctly, and that means they have to keep it opaque," says Hintz. The question then would be whether CCAR's requirements are so secretive or impenetrable that financial firms having difficulty completing the tests have a valid excuse as a result.
CCAR has been in place for a few years now, but its specifics change each year. BCBS 239, its European equivalent—and also the stress testing regiment carrying out Basel III's principles—is about to see its first run in 2016 (see my July column on industry readiness).
To know how to organize, process and report data to complete these tests and comply with these regulations depends on clarity about what the rules are and specificity about how they are being updated. In the present climate, it's questionable whether that's available. Before regulators can start a "Basel IV," they should tie up the loose ends still hanging off Basel III.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@waterstechnology.com or view our subscription options here: https://subscriptions.waterstechnology.com/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@waterstechnology.com to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@waterstechnology.com
More on Regulation
Doing a deal? Prioritize info security early
Engaging information security teams early in licensing deals can deliver better results and catch potential issues. Neglecting them can cause delays and disruption, writes Devexperts’ Heetesh Rawal in this op-ed.
SEC pulls rulemaking proposals in bid for course correction
The regulator withdrew 14 Gensler-era proposals, including the controversial predictive data analytics proposal.
Trading venues seen as easiest targets for Esma supervision
Platforms do not pose systemic risks for member states and are already subject to consistent rules.
The Consolidated Audit Trail faces an uncertain fate—yet again
Waters Wrap: The CAT is up and running, but with a conservative SEC in place and renewed pressure from politicians and exchanges, Anthony says the controversial database faces a death by a thousand cuts.
Exchanges plead with SEC to trim CAT reporting requirements
Letters from Cboe, Nasdaq and NYSE ask that the new Atkins administration reduce the amount of data required for the Consolidated Audit Trail, and scrap options data collection entirely.
EU banks want the cloud closer to home amid tariff wars
Fears over US executive orders have prompted new approaches to critical third-party risk management.
Friendly fire? Nasdaq squeezes MTF competitors with steep fee increase
The stock exchange almost tripled the prices of some datasets for multilateral trading facilities, with sources saying the move is the latest effort by exchanges to offset declining trading revenues.
Europe is counting its vendors—and souring on US tech
Under DORA, every financial company with business in the EU must report use of their critical vendors. Deadlines vary, but the message doesn’t: The EU is taking stock of technology dependencies, especially upon US providers.